4 ms·

Through the history, we've learned that the trial shall be hold at open court. It's not that open court is best to protect the plaintiff/defendant, but it's lea

by ezoe 7y ago

Through the history, we've learned that the trial shall be hold at open court. It's not that open court is best to protect the plaintiff/defendant, but it's least harmful way to ensure fair trial. The history proved countless times that the secret lawsuit filling, followed by the secret court judgement was not gone well. Even in the world where be judges, prosecutors and lawyers requires years of formal training and qualification, we had and are continuously having so many harmful judgement and only after decades if not centuries later, when complete third parties who doesn't share the outdated moral of that time can have the truly fair view of that event. Even worse, in the context of OSS community, the people who judge are not lawyer, probably no formal training on law and moral. They are in the current position because they had been contributing the OSS for long time. So. I think it's best to handle these situation to the traditional court rather than private decision from self-elected OSS chair.

AgentME 7y ago
If a well-known white supremacist political commentator got into Linux and wanted to do an introductory talk on some Linux aspect at the conference, should the conference be obligated to accept them just because they haven't been found guilty of ... what? If I hosted a party (or a conference), and a large fraction of the people I talked to at the event told me that person X at the event was creeping on them and they weren't coming back if person X was there, do I need to wait for person X to be found guilty of being a creep to ban them from the next event? Event organizers should have more leeway over their events than just "keep convicts out". Not saying that the conference organizers necessarily made the right call here with Charles Wood, just arguing that they have the right to make such a call. And people have the right to argue that it was the wrong call. I'm just disagreeing with the concept that it wasn't even their call to make. It especially doesn't seem to make much since to expect that the current court system can handle this call.

by ezoe 7y ago

AgentME 7y ago

If a well-known white supremacist political commentator got into Linux and wanted to do an introductory talk on some Linux aspect at the conference, should the conference be obligated to accept them just because they haven't been found guilty of ... what? If I hosted a party (or a conference), and a large fraction of the people I talked to at the event told me that person X at the event was creeping on them and they weren't coming back if person X was there, do I need to wait for person X to be found guilty of being a creep to ban them from the next event? Event organizers should have more leeway over their events than just "keep convicts out". Not saying that the conference organizers necessarily made the right call here with Charles Wood, just arguing that they have the right to make such a call. And people have the right to argue that it was the wrong call. I'm just disagreeing with the concept that it wasn't even their call to make. It especially doesn't seem to make much since to expect that the current court system can handle this call.